3 ms·

The rule is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This via the EFF[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service

The rule is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This via the EFF[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. In other words they'd be liable for what is published on their site whether by them or a third party. Platform is not a legal term, it's a colloquial distinction from publisher, which in this case refers to either the "interactive computer service" (e.g. Twitter) or the third party (e.g. the tweeter). Interactive computer service isn't as catchy. > Can you give an example of such a rule and what it would look like if it were applied to twitter? My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. [1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

root_axis 6y ago
> My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. Ok but clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content. In effect, it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down. Would you say that fairly describes your position or am I misinterpreting you?
- brigandish 6y ago
  > clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. > it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down That is technically known as a false dilemma. - They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action, no action for things off of the "platform", no new rules that just happen to affect their political opponents - They can refrain from reframing content - They can decide to become a smaller company (maybe more profitable (at last;), focus can help, niches help, size isn't everything) - They can hire more moderators - They can make the algorithmic tools they use available to users, if you don't want to read "deplorable" content then why not give you they power to make the choice and others the power to continue to read it? - They can make the rules clearer, tighter, more accessible. My Lord, there are so many choices available and they're not all mutually exclusive, and this isn't even an exhaustive list.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. Right... Because they have section 230 protection. Forums and newspaper websites are not "counted as publishers" with respect to comments you make on the site exactly the same way twitter isn't "counted as a publisher" for your tweets. > They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action... Why is it a false dilemma? You've offered up an arbitrary list of product and business suggestions based on your own opinions about how twitter should be run, but nothing you've said seems to contradict the conclusion that twitter should lose the legal protection that allows them to keep the site open if they moderate the site. Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet?
    - brigandish 6y ago
      > Right... Because they have section 230 protection. That's a good point. You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that. > Why is it a false dilemma? You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more. We must preserve the status quo or we die! is not a compelling argument to anyone with an ounce of imagination. > arbitrary list No, they're not "arbitrary", and I'm beginning to lose my patience with you. > based on your own opinions This is my account, I write my own opinions using it. > that allows them to keep the site open Begging the question. The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary. > Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet? I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down, regardless of whether they retained protection, and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        > You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that. If twitter becomes legally responsible for anything posted by the millions of users that publish content to the site then it's obviously impossible for them to keep the site running, the logic is very clear. > You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more No, there are only two, either the site has section 230 protection or it doesn't, there is no in-between state. > We must preserve the status quo or we die! An impressive strawman for someone with such an obsession for formal fallacy labels. > The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary. Your list of business suggestions are just ideas you made up, they have no legal meaning, hence arbitrary. Business decisions like "shadowbanning", "retroactive action", "reframing content" and even explicit partisan bias are 100% legal and Twitter is within their rights to operate their business in such a fashion. > I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down Yet in your own words: > The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" So in other words, the site shouldn't be kept open if they don't follow your legally meaningless suggestions. > and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line. lol whatever, if you're so intellectually dishonest that you won't admit to the implied conclusions of your own argument then I'm wasting my time anyway.
michaelmrose 6y ago
To be clear what most people pushing this position want is for Twitter to be so afraid of ruinous lawsuits that they are afraid to ban people who the rest of us find deplorable. Does that describe your position?
- brigandish 6y ago
  No, but what would be wrong with a company being afraid of ruinous lawsuits if those lawsuits had merit? You or I should be afraid of ruinous lawsuits because even one, one without any merit, can cost us a lot. We do not have the resources of Twitter, we do not have a permanent legal staff, we do not have a pit of money, we do not have wealthy backers, we do not have the ear of powerful people. They can fight a suit as far as it can go and actually create precedent in higher courts that you or I could never afford to reach. They can even face down a government lawsuit. If lawsuits were spurious they'd soon put a stop to them.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour. It would be impossible to run a site with user generated content. This is the absurd conclusion that nobody is willing to rule for. Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating. What is the desired end result.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      > Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating. If you're unable to maintain a respectful conversation then perhaps Twitter is a better place for you to spend your time. > If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour They could and would be immune if they did not editorialise. That's the whole point. > What is the desired end result. I don't have a desired end result because I'm not planning some utopian outcome. Let people be free to express themselves unencumbered and without meddling for overt political outcomes or some form of misplaced paternalism, that's it. If that's not illuminating enough for you then you have my permission to reply to someone else.

root_axis 6y ago

> My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. Ok but clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content. In effect, it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down. Would you say that fairly describes your position or am I misinterpreting you?

brigandish 6y ago
> clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. > it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down That is technically known as a false dilemma. - They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action, no action for things off of the "platform", no new rules that just happen to affect their political opponents - They can refrain from reframing content - They can decide to become a smaller company (maybe more profitable (at last;), focus can help, niches help, size isn't everything) - They can hire more moderators - They can make the algorithmic tools they use available to users, if you don't want to read "deplorable" content then why not give you they power to make the choice and others the power to continue to read it? - They can make the rules clearer, tighter, more accessible. My Lord, there are so many choices available and they're not all mutually exclusive, and this isn't even an exhaustive list.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. Right... Because they have section 230 protection. Forums and newspaper websites are not "counted as publishers" with respect to comments you make on the site exactly the same way twitter isn't "counted as a publisher" for your tweets. > They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action... Why is it a false dilemma? You've offered up an arbitrary list of product and business suggestions based on your own opinions about how twitter should be run, but nothing you've said seems to contradict the conclusion that twitter should lose the legal protection that allows them to keep the site open if they moderate the site. Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet?
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > Right... Because they have section 230 protection. That's a good point. You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that. > Why is it a false dilemma? You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more. We must preserve the status quo or we die! is not a compelling argument to anyone with an ounce of imagination. > arbitrary list No, they're not "arbitrary", and I'm beginning to lose my patience with you. > based on your own opinions This is my account, I write my own opinions using it. > that allows them to keep the site open Begging the question. The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary. > Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet? I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down, regardless of whether they retained protection, and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that. If twitter becomes legally responsible for anything posted by the millions of users that publish content to the site then it's obviously impossible for them to keep the site running, the logic is very clear. > You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more No, there are only two, either the site has section 230 protection or it doesn't, there is no in-between state. > We must preserve the status quo or we die! An impressive strawman for someone with such an obsession for formal fallacy labels. > The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary. Your list of business suggestions are just ideas you made up, they have no legal meaning, hence arbitrary. Business decisions like "shadowbanning", "retroactive action", "reframing content" and even explicit partisan bias are 100% legal and Twitter is within their rights to operate their business in such a fashion. > I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down Yet in your own words: > The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" So in other words, the site shouldn't be kept open if they don't follow your legally meaningless suggestions. > and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line. lol whatever, if you're so intellectually dishonest that you won't admit to the implied conclusions of your own argument then I'm wasting my time anyway.

michaelmrose 6y ago

To be clear what most people pushing this position want is for Twitter to be so afraid of ruinous lawsuits that they are afraid to ban people who the rest of us find deplorable. Does that describe your position?

brigandish 6y ago
No, but what would be wrong with a company being afraid of ruinous lawsuits if those lawsuits had merit? You or I should be afraid of ruinous lawsuits because even one, one without any merit, can cost us a lot. We do not have the resources of Twitter, we do not have a permanent legal staff, we do not have a pit of money, we do not have wealthy backers, we do not have the ear of powerful people. They can fight a suit as far as it can go and actually create precedent in higher courts that you or I could never afford to reach. They can even face down a government lawsuit. If lawsuits were spurious they'd soon put a stop to them.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour. It would be impossible to run a site with user generated content. This is the absurd conclusion that nobody is willing to rule for. Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating. What is the desired end result.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating. If you're unable to maintain a respectful conversation then perhaps Twitter is a better place for you to spend your time. > If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour They could and would be immune if they did not editorialise. That's the whole point. > What is the desired end result. I don't have a desired end result because I'm not planning some utopian outcome. Let people be free to express themselves unencumbered and without meddling for overt political outcomes or some form of misplaced paternalism, that's it. If that's not illuminating enough for you then you have my permission to reply to someone else.